Re: draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-06 - AdvInterval
Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.vrrp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:45:55AM -0400, Fioramonti, Joseph wrote: > Steve's suggestion certainly eliminates the question that I raised, and I > could live with it if that was the final consensus. Maybe I'm thinking too > hard about this, but it does not seem so clean to overload the object like > that. How do you feel about adding a units object? Sorry for chiming in late, but the discussion seems to be ongoing. I think it's just as easy to pick the most granular time unit that is likely to be used in the future and stick with that. In this case, that would seem to be milliseconds. A user can readily look at a millisecond display and derive centiseconds, deciseconds or seconds. While it is certainly "nicer" to have an object that reflects the protocol units, the fact that this is a unified MIB lends some support to being as inclusive as possible without going through contortions. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ vrrp mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp